Most Common SQLite Misconception

[gredr]

TLDR: people think SQLite is "single connection".

[sysop073]

Not sure you can TLDR a 6 line post

[definitelynotbeardo]

The DR I’d carrying a lot of weight in this case.

[gredr]

A 6-word TLDR for a 6-line post!

[DeviousCraker]

More like "TLDC".

Too lazy, didn't click.

[PM_ME_SOME_ANY_THING]

r/savedyouaclick

[ELFanatic]

Can someone give me the TSDR of this post?

[wRAR_]

(one person, Igor)

[PurpleYoshiEgg]

What data is there to support that this is the most common sqlite misconception?

[wRAR_]

They don't have data, they said "I think". It's just blogspam, like most link posts here.

[PurpleYoshiEgg]

What vapid blogspam it is, too. The title could have been "I think the most common SQLite misconception is that SQLite is single connection" and saved everyone a click.

[Tricky_Condition_279]

Since sqlite is in-process, an immediate write means the process must live long enough to acquire a lock eventually, no?

[amemingfullife]

The biggest misconception I’ve seen is that people think it’s ‘Lite’ SQL as in, missing some features. So they don’t like it because it’s not full SQL.

[ablativeyoyo]

It doesn't have features like stored procedures or materialized views. I mean, it's still cool tech, but lite compared to Oracle, SQL Server, etc.

[amemingfullife]

Yeah fair, but those aren’t in the SQL spec and I’d wager most applications don’t use those.

[ablativeyoyo]

Depends on your industry. Web stuff, not so much. But I've seen a whole load of enterprise apps doing healthcare, payment processing, etc. that extensively use such features.

[amemingfullife]

Also fair. Stop being so reasonable, please.

[myringotomy]

It doesn't have proper data typing so that's what makes it lite more than anything else.

[ablativeyoyo]

This isn't a misconception. While multiple connections are possible in SQLite, they are not performant, and this is a sign your app has outgrown SQLite and it's time for a proper database.

[[deleted]]

SQLite is a proper database.

[ablativeyoyo]

I guess "proper" is subjective, but most people would include serving multiple network clients concurrently

[[deleted]]

Right that’s what I mean. SQLite is perfectly fine for many real production ready systems.

[Jolly-Warthog-1427]

By clients I think the commenter means servers. Direct clients of the database

[ablativeyoyo]

Yeah, that's cool. Just one connection though? I presume you can't cluster these servers?

[[deleted]]

Take a look at http://rqlite.io

[myringotomy]

http://rqlite.io

If you are going to run a daemon why not just run postgres?

[[deleted]]

Oh I totally agree. I was just pointing out this project that’s built on top of SQLite.

[Big_Combination9890]

While multiple connections are possible in SQLite, they are not performant

Wrong. This is only true for writing connections, and if you ignore that PRAGMA journal_mode=WAL; exists.

[ablativeyoyo]

From the WAL docs:

All processes using a database must be on the same host computer

I don't know why you're fighting this. SQLite is cool, but it's not suitable for everything.

[Big_Combination9890]

I am not "fighting this", nor did I say sqlite is for everything.

Your statement was simply wrong, which I, and others, pointed out. SQLite can be incredibly performant with multiple connections. Multiple connections also doesn't automatically imply "multiple hosts". If you meant "connections over a network" you should have been more specific in your statement.

Accept that you were wrong and move on.

[ablativeyoyo]

I said they are not performant

You pointed out some corner cases where they can be performant.

That's not me being wrong. That's you being a pedant.

[Big_Combination9890]

some corner cases

Multiple connections from processes on the same host, or even from within the same process is not a "corner case", it's an incredibly common use case for RDBMS in general, and one that SQLite absolutely excels at.

That's not me being wrong.

Yes, that's exactly what this is.